Fine Words Butter No Parsnips

Published:Vperyod, No. 2, January 14 (1), 1905.

      Published according to the text inVperyod.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Foreign Languages Publishing House,1962,

      Moscow,Volume 8,

      pages56-62.Translated:Bernard Isaacs and The Late Isidor LaskerTranscription\Markup:R. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      (2003).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.•README

Wedraw the attention of our readers to the pamphletWorkers and
Intellectuals in Our Organisations, by “A Worker”, which the
new-Iskrists have just issued with a foreword by Axelrod. We shall probably have
occasion more than once to refer to this edifying tract, which illustrates
beautifully what fruits the demagogic preaching of the “Minority”,
or new Iskrists, has borne and continues to bear, and how the latter are now
trying to get out of the verbal mess into which they have talked themselves. For
the present we shall merely note the main points in the pamphlet and the
foreword.

“AWorker” had the misfortune to believe the rantings of the
new-Iskrists. Hence we find so manyRabocheye Dyelophrases

dIaAkimov in his pamphlet. “Our leaders from among the
intellectuals ... did not set themselves the task ...
of developing the class-consciousness and initiative of the workers....” Any
endeavour to display initiative was “systematically
persecuted”. “In no single type of organisation has there been room
for developing independent activity of the workers....” “The economic
struggle was wholly neglected”; “workers were not admitted”
even to agitation and propaganda meetings (who would have believed
it!). Demonstrations “have outlived themselves”—all these horrors
(which the oldRabocheye Dyeloused to cast in the teeth of the oldIskralong ago) are, of course, the work of “the bureaucratic
centralists”, viz., the majority at our Second Congress, which fought
againstRabocheye Dyelo-ism. Set on against the Party Congress by the
sulky minority, the poor “Worker” attacks this Congress because it
was held “without us” (without the workers), “without our
participation”, because there was “hardly a single worker”
there. Of course, the fact that all the real worker delegates at the
Congress—Stepanov, Gorsky, andBraun—staunchly supported the majority and opposed the spinelessness of
the intellectuals is discreetly passed over. But this does not matter. What
matters is the depth of depravity that results from the rantings of thesenew-Iskrapeople, who “attack” the Congress after being
defeated at the elections, who attack it before those who did not participate
in the Congress, inciting them to treat all Social-Democratic congresses with
contempt; who attack it at the very time when they have so nobly wormed their
way into the central bodies which act exclusively by authority of the
Congress. Is not Ryazanov’s stand far more honest? (See his pamphletShattered Illusions.) He bluntly declared that the Congress waspacked;but at least he has not been invested by this “packed
congress” with any title or office.

Itis highly characteristic of the psychology of a worker, even though his mind
has been turned against the “Majority”, that he is not satisfied
with phrases about autonomy, workers’ independent activity, etc. He repeats
these words like every new-Iskrist orRabocheye Dyelo-ist; but with
sober proletarian instinct he insists ondeeds in confirmation of
words, he does not want his parsnips buttered with fine
words.“With out a change in the composition”(“A
Worker’s” italics) of the leadership, fine words remain but words, he
declares. It is necessary to demand theadmissionof workers to all
important. Party bodies, to secure for themequal rightswith the intellectuals. With the deep distrust of a true proletarian and a true democrat
towards all bombast, “A Worker” exclaims:What guarantee is there that the committees will not have only intellectuals
sitting on them?This hits the nail on the head as far as our new-Iskrists
are concerned. This excellent question shows that theRabocheye Dyeloincitements have so far failed to befuddle the clear mind of the
proletarian. He states bluntly that the committee in which he worked
“remained a committee of the Minority only in principle, on paper [mark
this!], while in its actions it differed in no way from a committee of the
Majority. We workers have had no access to any important, that is to say
leading, Party body (let alone the Committee)”.

Noone could have shown up the Mensheviks better than this Menshevik worker has
done. He understands thatwithout guaranteesall this ranting about
autonomy and independentactivity of the proletariat remains what it is—cheap phrase mongering. But
      whatguaranteesare possible in Social-Democratic
    organisations—have you ever thought of that, Comrade “Worker”?
    What guarantees are there that revolutionaries who gathered at a Party
    congress, resentful over the fact that the Congress did not elect them, will
    not

after wardsshout that the Congress was a reactionary attempt to put
    over the viewpoint of the Iskrists (see Trotsky’s pamphlet issuedunder
      the editorship of the new “Iskra”), that its decisions
    are not sacred, that there were no workers from among the masses at the
    Congress? What guarantees are there that the general decision concerning the
    forms and guiding rules of Party organisation, a decision called the
    Organisational Rules of the Party and which cannot exist except in the form
    of such Rules—that this decision is not broken eventually by
    characterless people, with regard to that part of it which they find
    distasteful, on the pretext that such things as Rules are bureaucratic and
    formalistic? What guarantees are there that people who have broken the
    collectively adopted Rules of organisation will not afterwards begin to
    argue that organisation is a process, that organisation is a tendency, that
    organisation is a form that keeps in step with its content, and that it is
    therefore absurd and utopian to demand observance of the Rules of
    organisation? “A Worker”, the author of the pamphlet, did not
    ponder over any one of these questions. But he approached them so closely,
    so very closely, he put them so bluntly, so candidly and boldly to the
    phrase-mongers and politicians, that we heartily recommend his pamphlet. It
    shows admirably how the knights of the “fine phrase” are ex
    posed by their own followers.

“AWorker”, acting on second-hand information, objects to Lenin’s
“organisational plan”, but as usual he does not indicate asingleclear and precise ground for his objection. He mentions Panin
and Cherevanin[4](who have contributed nothing but angry words), but he does not
so much astake a glanceat Lenin’s much-talked-of letter to a
St. Petersburg comrade. If “A Worker” had not taken his abettors at
their word, but had looked at that letter, he would have read, to his great
surprise, the following:

“Weshould particularly see to it that as many workers as
possible become fully class-conscious and professionalrevolutionaries and members of the committee. We must try to get on the
committee revolutionary workers who have the greatest contacts and the best
’reputation’ among the mass of the workers. The committee should, therefore,
include, as far as possible, all the principal leaders of the working-class
movement from among the workers themselves.” (“Letter”,
pp.

				7-8).[1]

Readand re-read these lines, Comrade “Worker”, and you will see howyou have been hoodwinkedby theRabocheye Dyelo-ists and
new-Iskrists, who are attacking the oldIskraand its followers, the
“majority” of the Second Congress. Read the lines carefully and see
if you will accept the challenge I put forth. Find meanother passagein our Social-Democratic literature where the question you raised about
“the workers and intellectuals in our organisations” is presentedso clearly, directly, and decidedly,andwhere, moreover, the necessity
is pointed out of getting as many workers as possibleon the committee,
of getting to the extent possible all leaders of the labour movement from among
the working classon the committee. I say that you will not be able to point
to another such passage.I say that anyone who takes the trouble to study
our Party differences from documents,from Rabocheye Dyelo, fromIskra, and from the pamphlets—and not from tales spread by
gossips—will see the falsity and the demagogic nature of the newIskra’spreaching.

Youwill perhaps answer: Lenin may have written this, but his advice was not
always taken. Of course, that is possible. No Party writer will vouch that all
who call themselves his adherents always actually follow his counsels. But, in
the first place, would not a Social-Democrat who called himself an adherent of
the “Letter” while at the same time not following its counsels be
exposed by that very letter? Was the letter printed for intellectuals only, and
not for workers as well? Has a writer any means of stating his views other than
a printed statement? Secondly, if these counsels were not heeded, as “A
Worker”, for instance, testifies, either by the Mensheviks or by the
Bolsheviks, does it not clearly follow that the Mensheviks had no right toinventsuch a “disagreement” with theBolsheviks, that their incitement of the workers against the Bolsheviks on the
      grounds that the latter ignored the workers’ independent activity was
      sheer demagogy?

Wherein,then, lies therealdifferenceon this pointbetween
the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks? Is it not in the fact that the Bolsheviks
came forward much earlier and much more directly with clear and definite advice
to place workers on the committee? Is it not in the fact that the Bolsheviks
have always despised “fine phrases” about the workers’ autonomy and
independent activity, when such utterances remain mere words (as they do with
the Mensheviks)?

Seenow how the respectable, worthy, patriarchal Axelrod wriggles in his
foreword when he is driven into a corner by the proletarian bluntness and
boldness of a worker, who has imbibed so muchRabocheye Dyelowisdom
from Axelrod’s “admirable”feuilletons, Martov’s
unforgettable articles, and (from the point of view of the interests of the
“Majority”) Trotsky’s excellent pamphlet.

“AWorker” tries to question Ryadovoi’s[5]assertion that since
the time of Economism the membership of our Party organisation has become
relatively more proletarian. “A Worker” is obviously wrong. Anyone
who has observed the activities of our Party at close range for any length of
time knows this. Most curious of all, however, is the sight of our old Axelrod
changing front. Who does not remember his stout assertions, so skilfully
utilised by the enemies of Social-Democracy, theOsvobozhdeniyeliberals, that the Social-Democratic Party is an organisation of intellectuals?
Who does not remember how the new-Iskrists, with their grudge against the Party,
harped on this slander of the Party? And now the selfsame Axelrod, frightened by
the direct and honest conclusions which “A Worker” has drawn from
this slander, tries to dodge the issue:

“Duringthe period of the inception and early development of
Social-Democracy,” he says in his foreword, “the Russian revolutionary
party was purely a party of the intelligentsia.... Now the class-conscious
revolutionary workers form the main body

[mark this! Iof the Social-Democratic
Party” (op. cit., p. 15).

Poor“Worker”! How severe his punishment is for having believed Axelrod’s
“fine words”! Such punishment is the inevitableconsequence of trust in writers who for a year and a half have been
saying first one thing then another to suit the exigencies of
“co-optation”.

Seehow Axelrod dodges the question of “guarantees” when he has to
meet it outright. Why, it is a positive delight, a gem ofnew-Iskraliterature. “A Worker” speaks of the relation between the workers
and the intellectualswithin the organisations.“A Worker”is profoundly correctin declaring that without guarantees, without
equal rights, i.e., without the principle of elective office, all fine words
about non-bureaucratic centralism are mere phrase-mongering. And what does
Axelrod say in answer? “Over-zealousness for the idea of change in the
status of the workers in our organisations is one-sidedness.” The author
erroneously shifts the issue of eradicating evil “into the sphere of
formal organisational relations”; he forgets that “the particular
question of equalisation of rights” can be solved only “in the
process of the further development of our experience in a Social-Democratic
direction”. “The problem that particularly engages the author of
the pamphlet can be radically dealt with only in the process of consciously
collective work by our Party.”

Trulya gem! Why, it was none other than Axelrod who was the first to raise this
very question of organisation, and only of organisation, at the League

			       Congress[2]and in the newIskra(No. 55); but when “A Worker” writes a
special pamphlet on organisation, he is told pontifically that it is not
formality that counts, but the process of work!

Itis not the principles of organisation that matter to the newIskraand to Axelrod, but the process of twaddle to justify an unprincipled
stand. There is no meaning except a defence of unprincipledness in the whole
notorious organisation-as-process theory (see particularly Rosa Luxemburg’s
articles), a theory that vulgarises and prostitutes Marxism.

Werepeat, “A Worker’s” admirable pamphlet cannot be recommended too
highly as evidence of the utter falseness of the new-Iskrist position on the
organisational question. We recommend this pamphlet particularly to workers whom
the Mensheviks are trying to turn against the Bolsheviks bypreaching the elective

			      principle.[3]The workers are splendid at exposing
      phrase-mongers and liars. They put the question excellently: either the
      elective principle or only the advice to place workers on the
      committees. If it is to be the elective principle, give us formal
      guarantees, guarantees of equality embodied in the Rules. The workers will
      see the new-Iskrists running from a solution of this question as the devil
      runs from holy water. If advice to place workers on the committees is
      desirable, if the oldIskrawas right in maintaining that
    democracy, i.e., the universal application of the elective principle inRussiansecret organisations, is incompatible with the autocratic
    police-ridden regime, thennowherewill you find such direct and
    instructive advice to place workers on the committees as that given by the
    Majority.

[1]“A Letter to a Comrade on Our Organisational Tasks”. See present
edition, Vol. 6, p. 237.—Ed.

[2]See Note 52.—Ed.

[3]See N. Lenin,Statement and Documents on the Break of the Central
Institutions with the Party[see present edition, Vol.7,
pp. 529-39.—Ed.] The letter by theleader of the
Mensheviksquoted in this pamphlet reads as follows: “... the
workers are demanding the system of office by election. That is a clear
symptom of the agony of the Stone-Hards”. I belong to the Stone-Hards, but
this agony satisfies me very well. The workers’ demand that offices be
elective shows plainly that the new-Iskrists did not succeed in buttering
the workers’ parsnips with fine words, and that no evasions can now save
Axelrod from complete exposure.  —Lenin

[4]Panin—pseudonym of M. S. Makadzyub;Cherevanin—pseudonym of F. A. Lipkin. Both Menshevik
publicists.

[5]Ryadovof—pseudonym of A. A. Malinovsky.